How are parts of an exclude deposition public? That deposition does not belong to Samsung, their attorneys, or the public. Quinn also lied to the Judge. In court he claimed he sent it to journalists that requested it. At least one of these journalists claim they made no request at all.
You really think Quinn doesn't have a paper trail to cover his tracks?
I'm not sure how Apple asking for justifiable sanctions is contributing to this case looking like a circus. Samsung and their lawyers are doing a bang-up job of that themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikon133
Don't know. Looking at the opening, I think they did good. Apple did well, too.
I'm curious to know what would make you say such a thing — are you claiming inside knowledge?
My hypothesis is Quinn is not an idiot.
Additionally here's some facts that some of you need to address, especially those who mention the Ex Parte clauses:
#1: "the United States district court is a public institution, and the working of litigation must be open to public view. Pretial submissions are a part of trial" Dkt. No. 1256.
#2: The court presiding in this case has told the parties involved "the whole trial is going to be open". It further added "unlike private materials unearthed during discovery judicial records are public documents almost by definition, and the public is entitled to access by default".
#3: California Rule of Professional Responsibility 5-120(B)(2) specifically permits attorneys involved in litigation to disclose "information in a public record".
#4: All the disclosed information was already contained in the public record as it was reported by the NY Times, LA Time, Huffington Post, and CNET.
#5: This type is disclosure has happened before, in Brendt v. Cal. Dep't of Corrections, 2004 WL 1774227, it was ruled that the "attorney's extra-judicial statements regarding statements regarding a pending case did not create a "substantial likelihood of material prejudice" in part because the information "is contained in the public record, and Ms. Price may freely state any information in the public record".
#6: The Ninth Circuit has held that "a statement of opinion based on fully disclosed facts can be punished only if the stated facts are themselves false and demeaning".
#7: In United States vs Stutton, it was deemed that "after the jury is selected [...] any serious and imminent threat to the administration of justice is limited because there is an almost invariable assumption of the law that jurors follow their instructions".
Would someone who has opposed my claims and requests for explanation care to address the points please? It seems to me the court wanted an open trial, well those appear to be the rules that govern an open trial in California.
Additionally here's some facts that some of you need to address, especially those who mention the Ex Parte clauses:
#1: "the United States district court is a public institution, and the working of litigation must be open to public view. Pretial submissions are a part of trial" Dkt. No. 1256.
#2: The court presiding in this case has told the parties involved "the whole trial is going to be open". It further added "unlike private materials unearthed during discovery judicial records are public documents almost by definition, and the public is entitled to access by default".
#3: California Rule of Professional Responsibility 5-120(B)(2) specifically permits attorneys involved in litigation to disclose "information in a public record".
#4: All the disclosed information was already contained in the public record as it was reported by the NY Times, LA Time, Huffington Post, and CNET.
#5: This type is disclosure has happened before, in Brendt v. Cal. Dep't of Corrections, 2004 WL 1774227, it was ruled that the "attorney's extra-judicial statements regarding statements regarding a pending case did not create a "substantial likelihood of material prejudice" in part because the information "is contained in the public record, and Ms. Price may freely state any information in the public record".
#6: The Ninth Circuit has held that "a statement of opinion based on fully disclosed facts can be punished only if the stated facts are themselves false and demeaning".
#7: In United States vs Stutton, it was deemed that "after the jury is selected [...] any serious and imminent threat to the administration of justice is limited because there is an almost invariable assumption of the law that jurors follow their instructions".
Would someone who has opposed my claims and requests for explanation care to address the points please? It seems to me the court wanted an open trial, well those appear to be the rules that govern an open trial in California.
"Open" and "public" in a legal context do not mean what you think they mean. "Open" and "public" do not mean that one can dispense with the rules of procedure and evidence.
In any case I personally don't have a problem if Samsung presented this "evidence" in court, as it doesn't hurt Apple's case at all.
Good response. Yesterday I thought the release of the information quite questionable, today Quinn's declaration has convinced me it was entirely fair game.
I'm on Samsung's side this time. There's no reason that photo had to be excluded.
you're not thinking. why did they hold it back past the deadline? unless they were incompetent, there is only one good reason: to avoid Apple's follow-up discovery/deposition investigations about it. why do that? well, what do they have to hide? why did they erase all those emails too? huh? are you getting a clue?
"Open" and "public" in a legal context do not mean what you think they mean. "Open" and "public" do not mean that one can dispense with the rules of procedure and evidence.
In any case I personally don't have a problem if Samsung presented this "evidence" in court, as it doesn't hurt Apple's case at all.
Indeed. Saying a trial is open to the public simply means that the pubic at large can attend the trial and view on elements of that trial that are not private or considered sealed (say via a gag order). You can't just bypass rules of evidence or trial procedures by talking to the press anyhow and taint the jury by providing them with access to information the Judge specifically excluded from the jury. THe rules of court would be that you would appeal a judges decision if you feel it is improper.
If Samsung had attempted this in court (say via a summation type speech) Apple would have objected, the judge would have sustained, could have held Samsung in contempt, and would have ordered the jury to disregard. Of course Samsung knows that pulling that off in court would make them look desperate in front of the people that decide their fate. So they decided to do this in front of people who do not decide their fate and to which Apple cannot re-direct and cross. Hell it's not even testimony!
It's also why Apple want's sanctions in court - they want to avoid any possibility that this is seen as acceptable and they want it treated exactly as if it was done in court.
The judge was not happy, and one of the lawyers may suffer for it.
If you look at the "evidence" proffered, it's a really stupid thing. The phone they complain about was announced after the iPhone. If you look at the F700, it doesn't look like anything but a late dumbphone. Apple could have copied it FOREVER, and still not come up with the iPhone.
This is not a patent case. This is a trademark and trade dress case.
To me, it's absolutely clear that Samsung undertook to copy the iPhone. I don't think it's unusual at all. Since the earliest days postwar, the nascient industries of Asia that emerged from World War II -- and the Korean War -- started by copying. When the Asian ripoff market wasn't affecting us here, we never complained. But Samsung is a very major corporation now. Time to drop the business model of slavish copying. They have very good designers, and they should be able to come up with stuff that isn't just like Apple.
"Open" and "public" in a legal context do not mean what you think they mean. "Open" and "public" do not mean that one can dispense with the rules of procedure and evidence.
In any case I personally don't have a problem if Samsung presented this "evidence" in court, as it doesn't hurt Apple's case at all.
Exactly. I have to laugh at the suggestion made by another poster that Samsung's rights of freedom of speech are being violated. It's a shame that civics is apparently not taught (or taught poorly) in so many areas.
My hypothesis is Quinn is not an idiot.
Additionally here's some facts that some of you need to address, especially those who mention the Ex Parte clauses:
#1: "the United States district court is a public institution, and the working of litigation must be open to public view. Pretial submissions are a part of trial" Dkt. No. 1256.
#2: The court presiding in this case has told the parties involved "the whole trial is going to be open". It further added "unlike private materials unearthed during discovery judicial records are public documents almost by definition, and the public is entitled to access by default".
#3: California Rule of Professional Responsibility 5-120(B)(2) specifically permits attorneys involved in litigation to disclose "information in a public record".
#4: All the disclosed information was already contained in the public record as it was reported by the NY Times, LA Time, Huffington Post, and CNET.
#5: This type is disclosure has happened before, in Brendt v. Cal. Dep't of Corrections, 2004 WL 1774227, it was ruled that the "attorney's extra-judicial statements regarding statements regarding a pending case did not create a "substantial likelihood of material prejudice" in part because the information "is contained in the public record, and Ms. Price may freely state any information in the public record".
#6: The Ninth Circuit has held that "a statement of opinion based on fully disclosed facts can be punished only if the stated facts are themselves false and demeaning".
#7: In United States vs Stutton, it was deemed that "after the jury is selected [...] any serious and imminent threat to the administration of justice is limited because there is an almost invariable assumption of the law that jurors follow their instructions".
Would someone who has opposed my claims and requests for explanation care to address the points please? It seems to me the court wanted an open trial, well those appear to be the rules that govern an open trial in California.
Another brilliant mind
This has all been a game so far. Samsung intentially didn't bring their 2006-2007 prototypes into discovery so they could do this.
If you don't believe that, then please don't ever attempt to play chess, you'll always be several steps behind and lose every time.
The people that play this game earn $600-1200 an hour, yes an hour.
This has been Samsung's lawyers plan for a month or two, it's their strategy to make Samsung look good in public opinion even if they lose. Then the appeal.
"Open" and "public" in a legal context do not mean what you think they mean. "Open" and "public" do not mean that one can dispense with the rules of procedure and evidence.
In any case I personally don't have a problem if Samsung presented this "evidence" in court, as it doesn't hurt Apple's case at all.
I see. I just copied the salients parts of Quinn's declaration, but it's good to know that a legal expert being paid vast sums of money for representing one of the largest corporations in the world doesn't know, according to your extensive legal expertise, the difference between open and public. Thanks. Email Quinn, I'm sure he's dying for your input.
I see. I just copied the salients parts of Quinn's declaration, but it's good to know that a legal expert being paid vast sums of money for representing one of the largest corporations in the world doesn't know, according to your extensive legal expertise, the difference between open and public. Thanks. Email Quinn, I'm sure he's dying for your input.
So Samsung's attorney will have presented only accurate, legal arguments that are not open to question and not biased in any way, right? /s
Exactly. I have to laugh at the suggestion made by another poster that Samsung's rights of freedom of speech are being violated. It's a shame that civics is apparently not taught (or taught poorly) in so many areas.
Good of you to weigh in and distort words and context again. I didn't say Samsung's rights of freedom of speech are being violated. I said if Quinn is sanctioned for his comments, that would potentially be a problem pertaining to the first amendment that protects free speech since the Ninth Circuit has held that "a statement of opinion based on fully disclosed facts can be punished only if the stated facts are themselves false and demeaning." A sanctions is by definition a punishment. So, since the facts were fully disclosed, since nothing Samsung said is obviously false or demeaning, it seems as if it'll be hard to sanction Quinn without violation his First Amendment rights. But I'm not judge Koh. There may be means available to her that we don't know. But if you do know of them, how about you post some facts and sources rather than straw men?
So Samsung's attorney will have presented only accurate, legal arguments that are not open to question and not biased in any way, right? /s
I didn't say or suggest that. I said he seems to have a good argument given the evidence he presented. If you can disprove it, or show some counter-evidence, please do so and I'll consider it and potentially revise my opinion. But to simply claim the guy doesn't know some basic legal terminology is preposterous. Good to know everyone's intuitions and feelings on these matters is so much more salient than arguments based on legal precedent.
Comments
You really think Quinn doesn't have a paper trail to cover his tracks?
The device had just come forward. No one at Samsung was aware it existed prior to last week.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sennen
I'm not sure how Apple asking for justifiable sanctions is contributing to this case looking like a circus. Samsung and their lawyers are doing a bang-up job of that themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikon133
Don't know. Looking at the opening, I think they did good. Apple did well, too.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/connieguglielmo/2012/07/31/apple-samsung-trial-opens-with-one-juror-done-samsung-begging-live-blog/
Nothing in there to make me re-think my original statement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wovel
The device had just come forward. No one at Samsung was aware it existed prior to last week.
Irrelevant, as far as court procedure and rules of evidence are concerned, it would seem.
Why would he? I thought he hadn't done anything wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by johndoe98
You really think Quinn doesn't have a paper trail to cover his tracks?
I'm curious to know what would make you say such a thing — are you claiming inside knowledge?
My hypothesis is Quinn is not an idiot.
Additionally here's some facts that some of you need to address, especially those who mention the Ex Parte clauses:
#1: "the United States district court is a public institution, and the working of litigation must be open to public view. Pretial submissions are a part of trial" Dkt. No. 1256.
#2: The court presiding in this case has told the parties involved "the whole trial is going to be open". It further added "unlike private materials unearthed during discovery judicial records are public documents almost by definition, and the public is entitled to access by default".
#3: California Rule of Professional Responsibility 5-120(B)(2) specifically permits attorneys involved in litigation to disclose "information in a public record".
#4: All the disclosed information was already contained in the public record as it was reported by the NY Times, LA Time, Huffington Post, and CNET.
#5: This type is disclosure has happened before, in Brendt v. Cal. Dep't of Corrections, 2004 WL 1774227, it was ruled that the "attorney's extra-judicial statements regarding statements regarding a pending case did not create a "substantial likelihood of material prejudice" in part because the information "is contained in the public record, and Ms. Price may freely state any information in the public record".
#6: The Ninth Circuit has held that "a statement of opinion based on fully disclosed facts can be punished only if the stated facts are themselves false and demeaning".
#7: In United States vs Stutton, it was deemed that "after the jury is selected [...] any serious and imminent threat to the administration of justice is limited because there is an almost invariable assumption of the law that jurors follow their instructions".
Would someone who has opposed my claims and requests for explanation care to address the points please? It seems to me the court wanted an open trial, well those appear to be the rules that govern an open trial in California.
Quote:
Originally Posted by johndoe98
My hypothesis is Quinn is not an idiot.
Additionally here's some facts that some of you need to address, especially those who mention the Ex Parte clauses:
#1: "the United States district court is a public institution, and the working of litigation must be open to public view. Pretial submissions are a part of trial" Dkt. No. 1256.
#2: The court presiding in this case has told the parties involved "the whole trial is going to be open". It further added "unlike private materials unearthed during discovery judicial records are public documents almost by definition, and the public is entitled to access by default".
#3: California Rule of Professional Responsibility 5-120(B)(2) specifically permits attorneys involved in litigation to disclose "information in a public record".
#4: All the disclosed information was already contained in the public record as it was reported by the NY Times, LA Time, Huffington Post, and CNET.
#5: This type is disclosure has happened before, in Brendt v. Cal. Dep't of Corrections, 2004 WL 1774227, it was ruled that the "attorney's extra-judicial statements regarding statements regarding a pending case did not create a "substantial likelihood of material prejudice" in part because the information "is contained in the public record, and Ms. Price may freely state any information in the public record".
#6: The Ninth Circuit has held that "a statement of opinion based on fully disclosed facts can be punished only if the stated facts are themselves false and demeaning".
#7: In United States vs Stutton, it was deemed that "after the jury is selected [...] any serious and imminent threat to the administration of justice is limited because there is an almost invariable assumption of the law that jurors follow their instructions".
Would someone who has opposed my claims and requests for explanation care to address the points please? It seems to me the court wanted an open trial, well those appear to be the rules that govern an open trial in California.
"Open" and "public" in a legal context do not mean what you think they mean. "Open" and "public" do not mean that one can dispense with the rules of procedure and evidence.
In any case I personally don't have a problem if Samsung presented this "evidence" in court, as it doesn't hurt Apple's case at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by johndoe98
Good response. Yesterday I thought the release of the information quite questionable, today Quinn's declaration has convinced me it was entirely fair game.
It was aimed at the non-sequestered jurors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdkennedy
I'm on Samsung's side this time. There's no reason that photo had to be excluded.
you're not thinking. why did they hold it back past the deadline? unless they were incompetent, there is only one good reason: to avoid Apple's follow-up discovery/deposition investigations about it. why do that? well, what do they have to hide? why did they erase all those emails too? huh? are you getting a clue?
how about industrial espionage ...
But for some reason Samsung couldn't find their own photos from 2006-2007 in 2011-2012
Maybe they do need Siri
Quote:
Originally Posted by sennen
"Open" and "public" in a legal context do not mean what you think they mean. "Open" and "public" do not mean that one can dispense with the rules of procedure and evidence.
In any case I personally don't have a problem if Samsung presented this "evidence" in court, as it doesn't hurt Apple's case at all.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }Indeed. Saying a trial is open to the public simply means that the pubic at large can attend the trial and view on elements of that trial that are not private or considered sealed (say via a gag order). You can't just bypass rules of evidence or trial procedures by talking to the press anyhow and taint the jury by providing them with access to information the Judge specifically excluded from the jury. THe rules of court would be that you would appeal a judges decision if you feel it is improper.
If Samsung had attempted this in court (say via a summation type speech) Apple would have objected, the judge would have sustained, could have held Samsung in contempt, and would have ordered the jury to disregard. Of course Samsung knows that pulling that off in court would make them look desperate in front of the people that decide their fate. So they decided to do this in front of people who do not decide their fate and to which Apple cannot re-direct and cross. Hell it's not even testimony!
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
It's also why Apple want's sanctions in court - they want to avoid any possibility that this is seen as acceptable and they want it treated exactly as if it was done in court.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
The judge was not happy, and one of the lawyers may suffer for it.
If you look at the "evidence" proffered, it's a really stupid thing. The phone they complain about was announced after the iPhone. If you look at the F700, it doesn't look like anything but a late dumbphone. Apple could have copied it FOREVER, and still not come up with the iPhone.
This is not a patent case. This is a trademark and trade dress case.
To me, it's absolutely clear that Samsung undertook to copy the iPhone. I don't think it's unusual at all. Since the earliest days postwar, the nascient industries of Asia that emerged from World War II -- and the Korean War -- started by copying. When the Asian ripoff market wasn't affecting us here, we never complained. But Samsung is a very major corporation now. Time to drop the business model of slavish copying. They have very good designers, and they should be able to come up with stuff that isn't just like Apple.
Exactly. I have to laugh at the suggestion made by another poster that Samsung's rights of freedom of speech are being violated. It's a shame that civics is apparently not taught (or taught poorly) in so many areas.
Another brilliant mind
This has all been a game so far. Samsung intentially didn't bring their 2006-2007 prototypes into discovery so they could do this.
If you don't believe that, then please don't ever attempt to play chess, you'll always be several steps behind and lose every time.
The people that play this game earn $600-1200 an hour, yes an hour.
This has been Samsung's lawyers plan for a month or two, it's their strategy to make Samsung look good in public opinion even if they lose. Then the appeal.
I'll take the First Amendment on that and refuse to answer on the grounds it may incriminate me.
I see. I just copied the salients parts of Quinn's declaration, but it's good to know that a legal expert being paid vast sums of money for representing one of the largest corporations in the world doesn't know, according to your extensive legal expertise, the difference between open and public. Thanks. Email Quinn, I'm sure he's dying for your input.
So Samsung's attorney will have presented only accurate, legal arguments that are not open to question and not biased in any way, right? /s
Good of you to weigh in and distort words and context again. I didn't say Samsung's rights of freedom of speech are being violated. I said if Quinn is sanctioned for his comments, that would potentially be a problem pertaining to the first amendment that protects free speech since the Ninth Circuit has held that "a statement of opinion based on fully disclosed facts can be punished only if the stated facts are themselves false and demeaning." A sanctions is by definition a punishment. So, since the facts were fully disclosed, since nothing Samsung said is obviously false or demeaning, it seems as if it'll be hard to sanction Quinn without violation his First Amendment rights. But I'm not judge Koh. There may be means available to her that we don't know. But if you do know of them, how about you post some facts and sources rather than straw men?
I didn't say or suggest that. I said he seems to have a good argument given the evidence he presented. If you can disprove it, or show some counter-evidence, please do so and I'll consider it and potentially revise my opinion. But to simply claim the guy doesn't know some basic legal terminology is preposterous. Good to know everyone's intuitions and feelings on these matters is so much more salient than arguments based on legal precedent.